Case Name: AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 348 (9th Cir.
1979)
Facts
AMF Inc. manufactured "Sleekcraft" boats and alleged that a competitor's "Slickcraft"
boats caused consumer confusion due to their similar names.
The case focused on trademark infringement under the Lanham Act.
Issues
Whether the similarity between "Sleekcraft" and "Slickcraft" was likely to cause
consumer confusion.
Judgment
The Ninth Circuit established the "Sleekcraft factors" to assess the likelihood of
confusion, which include:
o Strength of the mark.
o Proximity of goods.
o Similarity of the marks.
o Evidence of actual confusion.
o Marketing channels used.
o Defendant's intent in adopting the mark.
o Likelihood of product line expansion.
The court ruled in favor of AMF, finding a likelihood of consumer confusion.
Analysis/Decision
The "Sleekcraft factors" provided a comprehensive test for determining trademark
infringement. The similarity in names, overlapping consumer base, and marketing
efforts established AMF's claim.
Case Name: Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 449
Facts
Amritdhara Pharmacy sold medicinal products under the trademark "Amritdhara."
Satya Deo Gupta marketed a similar product named "Lakshmandhara," leading to
allegations of trademark infringement.
Issues
Whether the phonetic similarity between "Amritdhara" and "Lakshmandhara" was
likely to confuse consumers.
Judgment
The Supreme Court of India emphasized that trademarks must be distinct to prevent
consumer confusion, especially in rural areas with lower literacy rates.
It held that phonetic similarity could lead to confusion and ruled in favor of
Amritdhara Pharmacy.
Analysis/Decision
The court stressed the importance of considering the overall impression of trademarks
on an average consumer with imperfect recollection. "Amritdhara" was deemed
distinctive and deserving of protection.
Case Name: Bajaj Electricals Ltd v. Metals and Allied Products, (1988) P.T.C.
169
Facts
Bajaj Electricals alleged that Metals and Allied Products used a deceptively similar
mark, "Bajaj," for their products, leading to brand dilution.
The plaintiffs argued that this caused consumer confusion and sought a perpetual
injunction.
Issues
Whether the use of a similar trademark by the defendants constituted infringement
and unfair competition.
Judgment
The court emphasized the importance of proving bad faith in trademark disputes and
highlighted the necessity of honest commercial practices to maintain fair competition.
The court ruled in favor of Bajaj Electricals and issued a permanent injunction against
Metals and Allied Products.
Analysis/Decision
The judgment reinforced the principle that intentional use of similar trademarks to
exploit a competitor’s reputation constitutes infringement. Honest practices were
deemed critical for fair trading.
Case Name: Blue Bell, Inc. v. Farah Mfg. Co., 508 F.2d 1260 (5th Cir. 1975)
Facts
Both Blue Bell and Farah Mfg. Co. created identical trademarks, "Time Out," for
men’s clothing lines.
The dispute centered on which party had priority in using the trademark.
Issues
Whether Blue Bell or Farah Mfg. Co. established prior use of the trademark in
commerce.
Judgment
The court applied the "first-to-use" principle and ruled that trademark rights are based
on actual use in commerce rather than mere registration.
It affirmed Farah’s priority over the trademark.
Analysis/Decision
The decision underscored the importance of demonstrating actual use to establish
trademark ownership. Farah’s evidence of earlier commercial use outweighed Blue
Bell’s claims.
Case Name: Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., AIR 2001
SC 1952
Facts
Cadila Healthcare and Cadila Pharmaceuticals used similar trademarks for their
pharmaceutical products, leading to consumer confusion.
The case emphasized public health risks due to confusion in the pharmaceutical
sector.
Issues
Whether the similarity in trademarks between the two companies posed a risk of
consumer confusion.
Judgment
The Supreme Court laid out several factors to assess deceptive similarity, including
the nature of the goods, consumer class, and trade channels.
It ruled in favor of Cadila Healthcare, highlighting the need for clear differentiation in
the pharmaceutical industry.
Analysis/Decision
The judgment emphasized stringent scrutiny in cases involving public health.
Protecting consumers from potential risks was deemed paramount.
Case Name: Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Sanders, 331 U.S. 125 (1947)
Facts
Sanders reconditioned and resold used Champion spark plugs without clear labeling,
leading to allegations of trademark infringement.
Issues
Whether refurbishers must clearly label reconditioned products to avoid consumer
deception.
Judgment
The court ruled that refurbishers must label products clearly to indicate they are not
new.
It emphasized protecting the brand’s reputation and avoiding consumer deception.
Analysis/Decision
The decision highlighted the need for transparency in reconditioned goods to preserve
the integrity of the original manufacturer’s trademark.
Case Name: Daimler Benz Aktiegesellschaft v. Hybo Hindustan, A.I.R. 1994
Delhi 239
Facts
Hybo Hindustan used the trademark "Benz" for their line of underwear, prompting
Daimler Benz to file a lawsuit for trademark dilution.
Issues
Whether the use of a well-known trademark like "Benz" for unrelated products diluted
its distinctiveness.
Judgment
The court held that using "Benz" for unrelated products diluted its brand value and
misled consumers.
An injunction was granted against Hybo Hindustan.
Analysis/Decision
The judgment reinforced the principle of heightened protection for prestigious
trademarks, particularly against dilution by unrelated goods.
Case Name: Hawkins Cookers Ltd. v. Murugan Enterprises, 2012 (50) PTC
290 (Del.)
Facts
Hawkins Cookers alleged that Murugan Enterprises used a deceptively similar
trademark for kitchen appliances.
Issues
Whether deliberate attempts to mislead consumers through similar trademarks
constituted infringement.
Judgment
The court ruled in favor of Hawkins Cookers, granting an injunction against Murugan
Enterprises.
It emphasized that honest use in good faith does not constitute infringement.
Analysis/Decision
The judgment clarified the circumstances under which a trademark may be used to
indicate adaptability without infringing on another’s rights.
Case Name: International Kennel Club of Chicago, Inc. v. Mighty Star, Inc.,
846 F.2d 1079 (7th Cir. 1988)
Facts
The International Kennel Club alleged trademark infringement by Mighty Star for
using a similar name for dog-related services.
Issues
Whether isolated incidents of consumer confusion were sufficient to establish
trademark infringement.
Judgment
The court held that widespread and consistent evidence of confusion was necessary to
prove trademark infringement.
Analysis/Decision
The judgment highlighted the need for substantial evidence of confusion to establish a
trademark infringement claim, particularly for descriptive or generic marks.
